Of course love of music or enjoyment is independent, should be basic knowledge now. The graphs are to test technical merits and outline characteristics.

My point is Inks there are those who will solely base their opinions on a graph forsaking what they hear as being the most important factor. I just couldn't do this and in that I'd be wasting my time in this hobby if I felt otherwise...

My point is Inks there are those who will solely base their opinions on a graph forsaking what they hear as being the most important factor. I just couldn't do this and in that I'd be wasting my time in this hobby if I felt that way.

Depends, it does tell you things that are definitive. If you feel having a bandwidth that doesn't reach to 20khz despite a 1k$ price tag isn't worthwhile then the graph will be the basis used to forgo the purchase of these and it's sound to base the opinion just based on this. Enjoyment factor is a variable that is affected by many subjective factors, even more useless in terms of recommendations.

Depends, it does tell you things that are definitive. If you feel having a bandwidth that doesn't reach to 20khz despite a 1k$ price tag isn't worthwhile then the graph will be the basis used to forgo the purchase of these and it's sound to base the opinion just based on this. Enjoyment factor is a variable that is affected by many subjective factors, even more useless in terms of recommendations.

You have a point.

Are you referring to the 334s with the above comment "bandwidth less than 20khz"?

I have a question about the graph. Looking at the CSD plot, does it show the mids to have slower decay? And would the mids then sound more forward than depicted by the graph?Edited by gnarlsagan - 12/18/12 at 12:30pm

When enjoyment factor is useless in terms of recommendations, I guess I'm out. Better sell my 334's and buy ety's. Best bang for the buck!

I'll even sell my cable and buy three more.

Hmmm, wow that went downhill really fast. Incase you missed my point, I raise the matter that such a factor is too personal to share or impose to another user. Funny how the Etys are used as a scapegoat. Personally, I love the Etys a lot more when damped a little more, then, they are quite enjoyable and forget about everything else.

Originally Posted by gnarlsagan

I have a question about the graph. Looking at the CSD plot, does it show the mids to have slower decay? And would the mids then sound more forward than depicted by the graph?

Yup, similar to the W4.

What's a shame is that it's not even well matched, something a W4/W4R does a lot better for less.

I think we need to understand the intended and accepted purpose of whatever is the basis of recommendations before backing, or condemning them, and especially when debating their validity. This is coming from someone who believes that everything can be objectively explained, even if we can't objectively explain it. In an ideal bubble where everything can be explained and measured accurately, and everyone fundamentally understands those explanations with no need to translate them into usable terms, I'd agree with you. Right now, I think concessions have to be made. Though that ideal world seems a little sterile to me =/ I'm inclined to think that every organic system needs a randomness or chaos element, as a catalyst to cause change and eventually result in an improved or different re-balancing.

"Enjoyment factors" can be useful to some if someone explains them well enough in light of a stated self reflection of why they enjoy whichever qualities of a certain IEM and those who read it process that information properly in regard to what they are looking for. I have general faith in the human mind to process information and don't doubt that people can glean whatever they are looking for from subjective accounts if there are decent qualifiers attached. This is making the assumption that for the main part, human hearing and initial processing of auditory information is generally objective, what with slight differences due to biology. It's in the neural connections then created based on the makeup of the individual brain and information or "experiences" that it has already processed that become subjective opinions, which is why I mentioned self-reflection and qualification. So as long as something conforms to whatever standard people set for their expectations, then that is pretty much a definition of validity.

In an unrelated matter, I have no idea why he brought up that Logitech patent. I'll make the assumption that this is not his area of expertise and that kind of "oh BTW I wonder" accusation is in poor taste. It serves no noble purpose either that I can see but feel free to correct me.

In an unrelated matter, I have no idea why he brought up that Logitech patent. I'll make the assumption that this is not his area of expertise and that kind of "oh BTW I wonder" accusation is in poor taste. It serves no noble purpose either that I can see but feel free to correct me.

Huh? This is exactly his area of expertise, he's questioning whether Uyama got permission from Logitech since there's obviously a patent they infringe (triple bore use). I personally don't think they have. Definitely serves a purpose as it's a potential issue, I think you missed the point.

Huh? This is exactly his area of expertise, he's questioning whether Uyama got permission from Logitech since there's obviously a patent they infringe (triple bore use). I personally don't think they have. Definitely serves a purpose as it's a potential issue, I think you missed the point.

By area of expertise, I meant international patent law. There's a patent in the US but who knows if there is infringement or even jurisdiction. Nothing is obvious. I don't think they have either for what it's worth.

It doesn't serve any noble purpose for him, nor his site. As far as I can tell, he has no qualification to even ask that question in an accusatory manner. It's a negative assumption. His "wonder" and the statement itself implies that he doesn't believe the company has sound business practices.

By area of expertise, I meant international patent law. There's a patent in the US but who knows if there is infringement or even jurisdiction. Nothing is obvious. I don't think they have either for what it's worth.

It doesn't serve any noble purpose for him, nor his site. As far as I can tell, he has no qualification to even ask that question in an accusatory manner. It's a negative assumption. His "wonder" and the statement itself implies that he doesn't believe the company has sound business practices.

They do infringe the patent, that's what obvious. Now whether it applies to this overseas company is another matter, I don't know this myself (though it is being sold in the US via ALO). There is nothing wrong with that questioning and I think you are just reading it in a negative/accusatory matter. To me, it comes off as sound questioning as there's a potential issue, he's just curious that's all...lol.

They do infringe the patent, that's what obvious. Now whether it applies to this overseas company is another matter, I don't know this myself. There is nothing wrong with that questioning and I think you are just reading it in a negative/accusatory matter. To me, it comes off as sound questioning as there's a potential issue.

But it's not obvious. Firstly, you can't infringe on something where it can't be applied. Infringement assumes a valid patent claim. Secondly, patents are tricky in that the wording and any small changes to the design in question could invalidate the claim. For all we know, the wording might not cover all three bore designs but only those with a specific structure or construction. Something as small as alignment or materials or distance to drivers could invalidate a claim. That's why I brought up that his qualification in even asking.

Maybe I am reading into it negatively, but it's hard not to when the purpose of this potential issue has nothing to do with sound or measurement, but with legal proceedings. Even if there is infringement, that doesn't change anything about how the IEM measures and every other part of his review still stands on its own. That's why it's a problem. It undermines his other work.